Peter Robinson: The DUP tactic of suspending Stormont has worked but staying out will not lead to further gains

A proposition must be either entirely right or completely wrong. In the real world it is not that clear or simple.

Two things can be said about the ‘Safeguarding the Union’ Command Paper without disputation by any intelligent unionist.

Firstly, the deal is not only a very substantial upgrade on both the Northern Ireland Protocol and Windsor Framework iterations, but the improvements are much greater than anyone expected. The paper addresses the issues identified in the DUP’s seven tests and makes real progress on each of them.

Secondly, the agreement has not conveyed us to the promised land where everything is ‘done and dusted’. It needs to be judged as a work in progress which not only requires attention to government delivery on its promises but a determination to improve and reform those areas where ambitions have not been fully met along with attending to the yet unidentified issues that will arise after implementation.

So the question for unionists is not whether the process has been completed but rather what strategy is employed to continue the pursuit of strengthening and safeguarding the Union? Is a continuation of the strategy of withholding support for the return of the assembly the best option or are other tactics more likely to garner success?

Sometimes there is a tendency to confuse or conflate policy objectives with the strategy aimed at securing them. I have heard nothing from within unionism that suggests the policy objectives have changed.

In this context I am not sure why (except when they are embellished or inaccurate) anyone should consider it divisive or unhealthy for unionists to draw attention to what would amount to a future work programme.

I recently made a comment which some poor souls considered revolutionary or heresy or both (Peter Robinson: a deal must be done by New Year - and the DUP's seven tests are the goal, November 20 2023).

I expressed the truism that the Democratic Unionist Party would not get everything it sought from the negotiations with the government – no party ever does. I drew attention to a difference of approach between nationalists and unionists.

Nationalists focus on ‘process’. They have clearly stated goals and judge each set of negotiations and decisions on the basis of whether they amount to progress towards their specified goals.

Unionists, however, often tend to reject a step-by-step approach in favour of turning down anything that falls short of fulfilling its entire agenda. No seasoned and serious politician should struggle with these concepts.

• Scroll down for more of this article. Click here for Peter Robinson in June 2022: DUP should stay out of Stormont until protocol bill is fully enacted

If the deal had been bereft of significant and tangible benefits then staying in the metaphorical trenches would have been justifiable.

Even before the deal had been published some unionists called for the putative deal to be rejected.

It is hard to now take advice about the value of the deal from people who had rejected it sight-unseen.

Unionists therefore have to decide whether there is a better strategy to achieve more progress.

No unionist has articulated a better alternative strategy nor, indeed, has anyone produced any improvements other that Sir Jeffrey and his team.

After two years I can only assume nobody has better alternative tactics and only rely on the hope that maintaining the same ‘stay out of Stormont’ strategy might bring further success.

I firmly believe there is no prospect of that strategy bringing more benefits.

Worse there is considerable risk of losing ground if the deal’s gains are not banked.

The DUP have milked the cow clean.

Moreover, the ‘Safeguarding the Union’ Command Paper has set out a process for assessing, monitoring, and reviewing the arrangements and negotiating more improvements.

Critics who have achieved nothing themselves and who have no attainable alternative strategy should be shunned.

I reminded of that historic speech, given at the Sorbonne in Paris by Theodore Roosevelt more than a century ago.

He spoke of those who hold an attitude of sneering disbelief who carp from the side-lines at those who actually bear the brunt of the day.

Those, he told his listeners who always profess that they would like to make progress, if only the conditions of life were not exactly what they actually are.

“The man who does nothing cuts the same sordid figure in the pages of history. There is little use for the being whose tepid soul knows nothing of great and generous emotion, of the high pride, the stern belief, the lofty enthusiasm, of the men who quell the storm and ride the thunder. It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly.”

Those in a position of leadership do not have the luxury of casting aside changes that contain very substantial improvements unless there is a better way forward.

So let the Delphic Oracles who demand the deal’s rejection, set out in clear terms, how they can achieve a better outcome or else help the DUP carry the load rather than adding to it.

• Peter Robinson is former leader of the Democratic Unionist Party. He served as MP and MLA for East Belfast and was first minister of Northern Ireland from 2008 to 2016